If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I finally saw it today. Nice work! I loved both Steve and Diana, the Ares twist was expected in that I figured it wouldn't be who we thought it was, but I was wrong about who it turned out to be. Diana's naivite was cute without making her a bimbo, the special effects weren't overdone, and there was enough mystery left over that sequels will seem continuations of her story rather than opportunistic do-agains.

The only thing that I noticed, one teeny little thing, inconsequential and didn't ruin it by any means, but I noticed, is that at the end the tanks the Germans are using were actually British Mark Vs. (Okay, so the Germans re-labeled captured British tanks, BUT STILL!)

Here's what I'll say about that script: there's no confirmation that it's Joss Whedon's. Now, I don't doubt that it actually is, but we don't know what stage of the process it is or who else may have touched the draft.

This is true. It does, however, have the watermark on it, which means it was just a practice draft. I can also see why folks think it is Whedon's. A lot of it reads like the way he tends to write dialog and seems like his bag as far as the action is concerned. And, given how much shit that script is getting, you would kind of think he would deny it was his script if it wasn't his work.

_________A.G.C.

Touch: A Trilogy - AVAILABLE NOW!
"The 'Touch' trilogy is a masterclass in world-building, tells a fascinating story with economy and intelligence, and does so with fine, pared-down prose." - Eric Brown, author of The Fall of Tartarus

"I loved this novella series. Brooding, earthy, whispering to us with a delicious mood of creeping dread while filling the heart with a pure sense of wonder." - Charles de Lint, author of The Onion Girl

This is true. It does, however, have the watermark on it, which means it was just a practice draft. I can also see why folks think it is Whedon's. A lot of it reads like the way he tends to write dialog and seems like his bag as far as the action is concerned. And, given how much shit that script is getting, you would kind of think he would deny it was his script if it wasn't his work.

It's only been a topic of conversation for about 24 hours. I'm sure we'll hear from him if it goes on much longer or if the story gets bigger. Again, I'm not saying at all that I don't think it is his or that the script should be defended, but in general I'm a fan of downplaying any Internet finger pointing when the only truth is that we don't know a whole lot.

It's only been a topic of conversation for about 24 hours. I'm sure we'll hear from him if it goes on much longer or if the story gets bigger. Again, I'm not saying at all that I don't think it is his or that the script should be defended, but in general I'm a fan of downplaying any Internet finger pointing when the only truth is that we don't know a whole lot.

It was first published over a month ago and got minor attention then. It resurfaced again mid-week with multiple articles across soft news/geek sites (The Mary Sue, Daily Dot, etc). Plenty of time for him to have said "Hey. That's not actually my script." (Which doesn't mean he won't. It's possible they aren't saying anything because they thought if they responded it would blow up more quickly.)

_________A.G.C.

Touch: A Trilogy - AVAILABLE NOW!
"The 'Touch' trilogy is a masterclass in world-building, tells a fascinating story with economy and intelligence, and does so with fine, pared-down prose." - Eric Brown, author of The Fall of Tartarus

"I loved this novella series. Brooding, earthy, whispering to us with a delicious mood of creeping dread while filling the heart with a pure sense of wonder." - Charles de Lint, author of The Onion Girl

Saw it with one of my boys last night. Really enjoyed it. My disappointments were in some of the Chekov's Gun-like moments.

For example: Etta needed more development, I think. She's there for the "slavery" gag, the sword gag during the alley fight, the "Oh, I found him at the German High Command" moment, and at the end. I expected much more from her after the "run this from my office" line and was disappointed.

Likewise, I really wanted and expected more about Charlie. It's clear he's shaken, with the "He sees ghosts" scene, and the bell tower. But was the bell tower because of what Diana said to him about honor, or because of the ghosts? Were they from one battle, or all through the years?

In the setup for the gala, Steve and Sameer are driving into the castle and the camera focuses on the chairs being set up. Then nothing ever happens with the chairs. What was that all about?

Agree with ChrisP's comments about the movie. I also didn't feel like the second and third acts really dragged that much. I would have liked to have seen more of a connection between Diana and one of the Veld villagers; I think that would have made the later scene much more powerful.

Saw it with one of my boys last night. Really enjoyed it. My disappointments were in some of the Chekov's Gun-like moments.

For example: Etta needed more development, I think. She's there for the "slavery" gag, the sword gag during the alley fight, the "Oh, I found him at the German High Command" moment, and at the end. I expected much more from her after the "run this from my office" line and was disappointed.

Likewise, I really wanted and expected more about Charlie. It's clear he's shaken, with the "He sees ghosts" scene, and the bell tower. But was the bell tower because of what Diana said to him about honor, or because of the ghosts? Were they from one battle, or all through the years?

In the setup for the gala, Steve and Sameer are driving into the castle and the camera focuses on the chairs being set up. Then nothing ever happens with the chairs. What was that all about?

Agree with ChrisP's comments about the movie. I also didn't feel like the second and third acts really dragged that much. I would have liked to have seen more of a connection between Diana and one of the Veld villagers; I think that would have made the later scene much more powerful.

Interesting thoughts.

"You ask me what I thought about
Before we were lovers.
The answer is easy.
Before I met you
I didn't have anything to think about."

Bob, I thought the chairs were so they could watch the shelling of the village, as mention was made earlier of a demonstration of the new gas. But you're right, it was set up and never followed through. That brings to mind something I thought was off in the final scenes with the bomber. There's all this exploding and stuff going on, and the Germans on the other side of the camp don't seem to notice. They're shooting at Steve and the others, but not reacting to the big stuff. Maybe mortals don't see what the gods are doing? Seems a stretch.

I too would like to know more about Charlie, and unfortunately he's not leading man material enough for any of the sequels to delve into what could be a great story. I did think the start was slow, all the way until they get to London, with some good bits but slow nonetheless. But great once it took off.

Fiunally got to watch it. (Damn you, International licensing! Longest two weeks ever with all the avoiding of the internets and stuff...) I fully agree with most people here - the first 2/3rds weren't perfect but perfectly enjoyable for the charm, the humor and the sincerity.

The villains had the big issue of not being connected, personally, to any of the protagonists. Yes evil about to destroy millions, but that's the very definition of not personal.

The ending, though. It feels rushed, slapped on, and instead of further character development or an actual on-screen connection between Diana and Ares we just get lots of exposition lined into the bombast. Didn't work for me at all. And it would have been so easy to fix that I wonder if this wasn't the original ending:

After defeating Ludendorff and learning that this didn't end the war, she comes around to helping Steve put an end to the gas plot, accepting that while Ares may be behind this, he wasn't an actor in the war but more of a driving force behind it. And that people sometimes just suck. The war, then, is ended by the peace talks that now actually have a shot. We end on Sir Patrick/Ares, smiling and already plotting World War II (which, as we've all learned in history class, wass partly a result of World War I's fallout).

Seriously, all the elements needed for a good ending were already in place. My guess is that Zack Snyder said that's not enough of a splash and she neded to defeat Ares, too.

Wonder Woman has super powers, bulletproof bracelets and a magic lasso, but there's one other thing she might need. A better agent.

Since its theatrical release, Wonder Woman has continued to pass one box office milestone after another, including lassoing up over $500 million worldwide in its third weekend. However, despite being the DC Extended Universe’s most well-received film to date and surpassing numerous expectations, one person who surprisingly might not see as much of the film’s riches reflected in her paycheck as she deserves is the star, herself: Gal Gadot.

Back in 2014, when Gadot first signed her three-picture deal with Warner Bros., Variety cited the Israeli entertainment show Good Evening with Gai Pines for confirming that Gadot would earn a mere (by Hollywood standards) $300,000 for each film – Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Wonder Woman and this fall’s Justice League, though Gadot will surely earn more than what her contract initially stipulated — likely much more — after she receives any applicable bonuses based on Wonder Woman‘s success.

To be clear, this sort of pay rate isn’t entirely unheard of in the superhero blockbuster genre. Much like Gadot, Chris Evans also earned $300,000 for his first major franchise solo outing, Captain America: The First Avenger. On the other hand, Gadot’s Justice League co-star Henry Cavill managed to wrangle a cool $14 million for Man of Steel, as reported by Forbes in 2016, though that was presumably after a total after back-end bonusing.

Both Cavill and Gadot entered the DCEU with arguably the same level of star power, appearing in just a handful of major American motion pictures prior to being cast as Superman and Wonder Woman respectively. In fact, one could argue that Gadot was perhaps an even bigger name than Cavill at the time of her casting, having played the recurring role of Gisele in the wildly successful Fast &Furious franchise since 2009. While it’s hard to say exactly why these two actors of similar caliber were given such drastically different paydays for their solo films, one can’t help but point to the discrepancy as a symptom of Hollywood’s all too real gender pay gap.

Erh, yeah. Which is as expected when a movie on its 3rd weekend is compared to movie on its 1st weekend which is the sequel to a very popular film.

What is more significant is that WW only dropped about 30% in its 3rd weekend. Which means it likely will have a long life at theaters rather than quickly dropping off the charts. This is also significant since it suggests that it will have a substantial DVD and streaming life.

WW will also make a lot on merchandising, which is just getting ramped up because no one expected just how big WW turned out to be.

And why does nobody ever shoot at her feet? Or from behind? Good luck deflecting those.

Originally Posted by katiemac

She's shot at from behind a few times in the alley scene, and at least one bullet bounces off her back in the warehouse.

In the alley scene she's whirling in place and deflecting all the bullets with her bracelets, at least that's the way I saw it. In the warehouse scene the bullet hits her costume, which must be also be resistant to bullets if it shattered the way it was shown.

Still, she has all that bare flesh. Isn't that vulnerable? Else why would she bother using her shield to protect from bullets when she was fighting in No-Man's Land?

I suppose we (or at least I) have to just accept the movie/comics logic that we see in Star Wars and Guardians and so on, where the bad guys are incredible bad shots who never hit the good guys, and the good guys are incredibly good shots who never miss the bad guys. And we have to accept the costumes for the same reason.

Realistically, the costumes of comics superbeings are silly, put there to please teenage boys. But they are so rooted in the culture that making a movie about, say, Superman without his useless red cape would ensure the movie failed. Ditto Batman's costume, though there his cape is shown acting as a parawing.

The same is true of Wonder Woman's costume (who incidentally is wearing heel lifts in the later battle scenes if you look closely, as director Patty Jenkins mentions in an early interview). Even women fans of Diana who recognize her costume's voyeuristic roots would likely be upset to see much change in her costume.

I did have fun in writing a "Wonder Woman Rethought" novel which handles costumes more logically. (It is now in submission to a dozen agents.) In my version of my protagonist, on her 18th birthday she is reminded she's adopted, and told that her bioparents were from a far star. She gets gifts from them, including an invisible force-field spacesuit that protects her and lets her fly. The logo on her tee-shirt is of her favorite band, WingZ. Here she's shown testing the suit. (The image was reduced in size and stored on a server which conforms to AW's image display policy.)